Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think it's just an argument against a unilateral decision by NVIDIA under the facade of morals. Businesses aren't people and don't have morals, everything they do is strategic and profit motivated, even if the people that compose them have morals.

My guess is that NVIDIA doesn't want one basket of demand dominating the majority of their demand while disenfranching all of their other demands in parallel computing (graphics, industrial/scientific, etc.). If they allow crypto to take the lionshare of their cards, consumers for the other demands will eventually seek out alternatives if they haven't already. That's all well and fine as long as crypto demand sustains whatever NVIDIA can supply indefinitely.

It's not so great if crypto demand for GPUs drops drastically, then NVIDIA is sitting there looking to drum demand back up from all their previous customers and markets. Essentially, they're likely just trying to distribute risk for a future demand portfolio.

I can't honestly believe any large investors or top level executives at NVIDIA are losing a second of sleep by having so much demand they have to turn people away. If they're losing any sleep it's all the lost profit they can't make because they can't meet full demand or because they're in a potentially risky situation.



Did they do it under a facade of morals? Perhaps you can point me to where Nvidia makes a moral argument.

As an aside, businesses don't act on their own. People do have morals, and they're the ones running things. Whether or not they use their morals is a different question, but we needn't preemptively excuse them from doing so just because money is involved.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: